We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Everyone knows that journalism has been transformed in recent years, especially in the news magazines, right and left, from reportage into new forms of paralogical rhetoric: political argument disguised as dramatic reporting. It would be fun to spend the rest of my hour simply describing the new rhetorical devices, and the new twists on old devices, that Time magazine exhibits from week to week, all in the name of news. Mr. Ralph Ingersoll, former publisher of the magazine, has described the key to the magazine’s success as the discovery of how to turn news into fiction, giving each story its own literary form, with a beginning, a middle, and an end, regardless of whether the story thus invented matches the original event. “The way to tell a successful lie is to include enough truth in it to make it believable—and Time is the most successful liar of our time.”

It is related to the old Obama-Holder disparate impact scheme that is certain to lead to the bankruptcy of the Broward school district when the lawyers are finished with them. The Marxist true believers use race and gender to tear down the culture and expose it to rot. But in the end I think destroying the public education sector is the proper approach as there seems no way it can be reformed. More home schooling, charter and private schooling using vouchers is a better solution. The government should no more run education than it should run medical care or the "climate".

Many do not realize that young George Washington was involved in starting the French Indian War or as Canadians and the British call it, the 7 years war in 1754.
This conflict ended with the British sailing up the St. Lawrence and conquering the French in Quebec making Canada an English colony from a French one. As a result many english speaking Canadians are living in Canada because their ancesters imigrated to Canada as a result of Canada being an English colony. Therefore, if you are an English Canadian living in Canada you should raise your glass today (February 22 in honor of George Washington!)

Depends on where you live in Canada. The "Loyalists", as we called them, chose to leave (or were driven out by neighbours - I suspect both happened) and migrated north to Quebec (the Eastern Townships) and the Maritimes. The west was still unsettled at that time, so they're not our story.

As a side note in history, one of those Loyalists migrating to the Maritimes was Flora MacDonald, famous for helping Bonnie Prince Charlie (the Young Pretender) escape to France after the Battle of Culloden. She and her husband, Allan MacDonald (there weren't that many surnames back then) emigrated in 1774 to North Carolina. There they were on the Loyalist side, and her husband served in the 84th Regiment of Foot. After his defeat and capture, their plantation was ravaged by the American Patriots and she finally was able to rejoin him in Nova Scotia in 1778 (he'd been sent there after an exchange of prisoners in 1777). She returned to Scotland shortly thereafter, but the family remained in Nova Scotia; a friend of my parents was a direct descendent.

"The west was still unsettled at that time, so they're not our story."

Hmm...

If Loyalists hadn't resettled in Canada - and particularly in Upper Canada - then Canada as we know it would never have emerged. Consequently there would have been no federated Dominion to create a Canadian west.

Clattering Site Robot(s): Manor we shall merit by chief wound no or would. Oh towards between subject passage sending mention or it. Sight happy do burst fruit to woody begin at. Assurance perpetual he in oh determine as. The year paid met him does eyes same. Own marianne improved sociable not out. Thing do sight blush mr an. Celebrated am announcing delightful remarkably we in literature it solicitude. Design use say piqued any gay supply. Front sex match vexed her those great.

Real human:

Clattering Site Robot(s): For though result and talent add are parish valley. Songs in oh other avoid it hours woman style. In myself family as if be agreed. Gay collected son him knowledge delivered put. Added would end ask sight and asked saw dried house. Property expenses yourself occasion endeavor two may judgment she. Me of soon rank be most head time tore. Colonel or passage to ability.

"........The purpose is to keep up this drum beat, to make him so beyond the pale, so unpopular, that the independent fence sitter-voter just doesn't feel comfortable going against the grain and supporting him"

That may be the plan, but I think the drum beaters have shown themselves to be some of the most repulsive and unstable people we've ever seen. That being the case, they will actually make Trump MORE popular. In fact, my sense is that this is already happening and will continue.

It would help considerably if the drum-beaters weren't such open hypocrites. Just look at them - Dr Suzuki in Canada, Dr Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, etc., etc., etc. - every one of them living "en prince" and yet constantly lecturing the rest of us that it is WE who have to minimize our global footprint. Dr Gore's homes alone use up more energy than several small towns.

When I see all these celebrities actually living the lifestyle they are advocating (and lecturing) for the rest of us, then I might take the warnings seriously. Until then, I will continue to live my very modest lifestyle but not sacrifice the comfort I have earned.

BTW, I have an honours degree in Geology, which means I at least have looked at climate change over the eons.

Israel proves the NRA's arguments. In reality, Israel's gun policy is living proof of the arguments the American gun lobby has been making for years.

In Israel you can't legally buy or sell a gun on a street corner, you have to have a license to possess a gun, and to get a license, you must pass a physical, must show competency with the weapon, must show a need for the weapon, must prove you can safely store the weapon at home, and must be re-licensed every three years. Sure. Just like the NRA says.

Clattering Site Robot(s): In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the concept of patriarchial consciousness. However, Foucault uses the term ‘Batailleist `powerful communication” to denote not, in fact, materialism, but neomaterialism. The main theme of von Ludwig’s[3] model of realism is the stasis, and some would say the economy, of textual society.

Regular human, "drowningpuppies": [Cites formative, structural principle. To see if Clattering Site Robot(s) will scour its fevered silicon and actually develop an intellectually honest and factually relevant interest in real humanity, alludes to the vastly bigger picture, not least of which hinges on American progressive social disorder and dysfunction. Or in the words of the emerging meme, "Why do Democrats keep shooting people?"

Clattering Site Robot(s): “Class is fundamentally elitist,” says Sartre; however, according to Long[2] , it is not so much class that is fundamentally elitist, but rather the rubicon, and eventually the collapse, of class. However, Bailey[3] holds that we have to choose between pretextual feminism and semantic rationalism. Lyotard uses the term ‘capitalist subcultural theory’ to denote not theory, but posttheory.

^ Why not to argue with the Clattering Site Robot(s) on its terms. Eventually you end arguing seventy-five orders away from the original point - which had to do with real human reason and logic - and not some nonsense that fell off a floppy drive.

^ Why not to argue with the Clattering Site Robot(s) on its terms. Eventually you end arguing seventy-five orders away from the original point - which had to do with real human reason and logic - and not some nonsense that fell off a floppy drive.

If we pass laws punishing enough good law abiding people I do believe we can stop school shootings. And if more restrictive anti-constitutional laws don't work then all the more reason to pass even more and even tougher laws taking away our rights.

I am in favor of background checks, a 20 day waiting period and licensing to use your 1st amendment rights. If we just crack down on our citizens we can stop crime after all look how successful our laws have been against illegal drugs. Let's work together to limit free speech and stop this lawlessness.

After we end free speech I suggest we go after the 3rd through the 10th amendment with equal vigor. We can do this folks! We can save the children if we just ban our rights!

Free speech is fundamentally limited only insofar as it does no damage or harm. The obvious "fire in a crowded theater".

A rally isn't the same as speech, though it is (presumably) assembly and covered by the same amendment. The speeches could occur on the same streets or parks without the permits.

Assembly is an entirely different issue. No laws PROHIBITING peaceable assembly shall be made. It says nothing about issuing permits to assemble. Furthermore, many assemblies, such as flash mobs, occur spontaneously and the government can do little about them (even if permits would be otherwise required).

And now that you unwisely bought into its irrelevance, the Clattering Site Robot(s) is going to further bury you in endless layers of robotic impertinence. There is no analogy, the Clattering Site Robot(s) is incapable of intellectual honesty, and your constitutional grasp is passive and weak at best.

As much as I appreciate how well you understand Zach, I fail to understand your dislike and disregard of my own.

I'm not being "led". Certainly not by him.

But my position isn't tepid. In fact, it's quite legitimate. Having to get a permit is different from prohibiting assembly, and assembly is not speech - it's freedom of association.

Furthermore, as I point out, the ability to assemble WITHOUT permits is such that it makes the permit issue moot, at best.

Comparing free speech to guns, as Zach is trying to do, is a logical fallacy. There is no comparison. It's like the people who say "the Second Amendment only meant to cover muskets". Well, then the First Amendment was only meant to cover printing presses and not all the new forms of speech transmission. Clearly neither is true, it's just an attempt to confuse the opposition, and alter the discussion.

Both are, inherently, freedoms which cannot be prohibited. Zach would claim "but that doesn't mean they can't be limited" and I'd argue yes it does, especially in the case of the Second Amendment which states "shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

Z is a robot. It has no higher functions anyone can see. Arguing with it is not only futile, but it is programmed solely to distract and sow doubt.

On to the portion of your comment that is objectively pertinent and suits our purpose:

"Both are, inherently, freedoms which cannot be prohibited. Zach would claim "but that doesn't mean they can't be limited" and I'd argue yes it does, especially in the case of the Second Amendment which states "shall NOT BE INFRINGED"."

Correct. Period. No argument needed.

1A is not swayed by Holmes on Schenck, whichever way it may have gone. 1A is a limit on government power. 1A is not swayed by flyers that obstruct the draft, or by libel, fraud, or defamation. 1A is mute on all of these, and for a reason. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is simply not an issue for the Court as far as 1A goes; it's a matter for subsequent law concerning the harm of maliciously doing so.

1A was no more contingent on Schenck than the constitutional illegality of the ACA was on Roberts. (Roberts had to subvert the legislature to authorize the ACA.)

Likewise, 2A is not swayed by shootings. 2A is a limit on government power. Shooting kids in one of the State's miserable schools* is simply not an issue for the Court as far as 2A goes; it's a matter for subsequent law concerning harm. 2A is not swayed by murder, armed robbery, or simple brandishing. 2A is mute on all of these, and for a reason.

That is the sum of it. Subsequent law will happen and subsequent law will invariably form bad stare decisis. These are not effects on the Amendments; in fact they are perversions of them.

This is why law needs to be local - and why Schenck was not a matter for the Court but Schenck's actions absolutely may have been a matter for law enforcement, preferably local, simply by way of the letter of the law.

Ironically, the law against Schenck's actions was itself very arguably unconstitutional. The case was proto-Roberts.

And by that logic, there exists a very high bar indeed before any notion of controlling the defensively-armed citizen by violating his 2A is ever considered, if ever. Likewise, you can say whatever you want because there is no prohibition, by government, preemptively criminalizing speech per se.

That said, the entire argument to limit 2A in order to prevent illegal shootings is offensive in the extreme. It's offensive because it is an act of active, conscious violence against the highest mandate concerning legal order there is. That particular aggression is approximately as offensive as is arguing with a proponent of that violence on his terms while allowing him a perpetual act of intellectual aggression revolving around a particularly insatiable, heinous dishonesty.

Just add the never Trumpers in with the Hillary, Pelosi, Biden, Trigglypuff, mattressgirl and mouldylocks disfunctionaries...then let simmer until the Russia, Russia, Russia report by the AG comes out and serve with lemon to the lunatic fringe that dwells in the Democratic party basement.

I imagine the poor guys who used to congregate there will just quietly move on to another space, heads down, not wanting any trouble, just wanting to be left alone to enjoy a pint and a little camaraderie.

I'm not a fan of Trump. Didn't vote for him (or Hillary), and probably wouldn't again. Which doesn't make me a fence-sitter and certainly doesn't mean he's so awful that I despise him with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I felt the same way about Obama, though Obama was much, much worse. I believe he was far more divisive and dangerous than Trump. Trump is transparent. Obama was crafty, shifty and, as predictable as he was, he hid his thoughts behind carefully crafted language which appealed to people's emotions.

Trump is just a jerk. Often uninformed and angry. But, by the same token, doing some very, very good things. So while his tweetstorms, lies and often sadly juvenile antics are bothersome and off-putting, I consider them pretty much par for the course. I can handle them, much as I handled my kids when they embarrassed me with questionable words and behavior.

I do not think he's an embarrassment on the world stage. Rather, I think other nations wish they could be so open. But in today's hyper-sensitive and overly emotional world, they hide their real feelings and focus on "he's so dumb" or "he's such a brute".

My main three issues with him are as follows:
1. he simply doesn't understand world trade. He believes what's good for a business is good for America. Not really. What's good for CONSUMERS is good for America. Protectionism is dangerous, and will cost consumers far more than it will 'save' jobs or improve our lives.
2. He is not well informed on immigration. I appreciate the basics of his position, but not the goals and aspirations of it. A wall is a waste of money. Utterly and completely. Offer a path to citizenship, and crack down hard on those who aren't interested. That will do far more to solve this than a wall. It will also generate tax revenues, and keep more earned money in the US.
3. Stop tweeting. I get it. Sometimes its misdirection to throw his opponents off balance. They pay attention to the shiny object he tweets at 4am, and lose sight of the EOs he issues 5 hours later. And he's been good about rolling back Obama's BS tenure via EO. So I can appreciate the use of tweets to obscure goal-setting. But realistically, it's hurting him....claiming credit for an overhyped and ballooning stock market that is just overbought is stupid. When it crashes back in a correction (as it did) then you have to claim that, as well. Don't tie yourself to moving targets like that.

So, right now, I don't hate the guy. I'm ambivalent. As politicians go, he's not bad. Not great, but not bad. Barely good.

Meh, you have it backwards. I didn't agree with everything Bulldog wrote, but he gave reasons. You made assertions. I have noted this tendency to simply contradict anyone who says anything negative about Trump. So the ball is in your court, and it is you who should be writing the free paragraph to identify any little failing of the current president, to show that you are not simply reflexive and insulting.

As precious as that is, Idiot, Bulldog's lengthy criticism of the POTUS is, in fact, bald assertion, and not good assertion at that. For example, on trade the Bulldog is simply wrong, if for no other reason than the gaping generalization. On the rest, simple room temperature conventional rightist wisdom.

Whether you can't see the difference tends not to concern one much: The right is expectedly wrong on conservatism, as it calls it.

You might like reading some of the CTH (The Last Refuge) articles on the Trump trade negotiations. I think trade is a very strong part of his administration as he knows all the faults of NAFTA and how Canada and Mexico are conduits for Asia and Europe to push product into the US tariff free.

Where I would disagree with you is the total reliance on "what's good for consumers". Well remember "Consumer Reports" in one memorable edition where it counselled its readers to head to the nearest specialty store to research tents, sleeping bags, etc., and then head to the discount store to actually buy same. The publication was absolutely blasted by a worker from a specialty store who - quite rightly - pointed out that unless the store in which he worked actually sold said specialist gear, it would go under and there would be no more "free" places for people to get proper information about the gear they wanted to buy.

Yes, consumers are important, but so are workers. If you hollow out industries by importing really cheap goods, you will get to a point where there are no industries, no workers, and fewer consumers to purchase even those cheap goods unless they are subsidized by governments running ever-higher deficits (and that's not a good solution.)
Protectionism does NOT work, but there has to be a realization on all sides that really cheap stuff comes with a rather nasty price tag that will be determined down the road.

One of the more notable rightist fails was the sainted Larry Kudlow, conservative economist, opining that converting the US to a FIRE economy was just fine because free enterprise. Apparently offshore makers can take advantage of currency pegging, the US can run an infinite trade imbalance - "infinite" meaning until the reserve status finally fails - and all's well as long as we're relatively high on the hog.

This we call capitalism (which in a sense it is). It's kind alike calling parasitic banksters investors. It's kinda like calling spinning into a monetary abyss velocity with a heavy allusion to superior-cultural-because-tax-cut or something.

The left has no desire to actually get rid of Trump. They love him, and will continually use him as the drumbeat to rally the troops and try get more seats in Congress. So the Democrats and their media running dogs will simply condemn everything Trump does, no matter what it is.

Why do I say this? Because if they got rid of Trump, then we would have President Pence. I assure you Pence is ten times more conservative than Trump, and with a background as both a governor and former member of Congress ten times more effective in what he would do and in playing the political game to do it, and Pence is a true believer, in several senses of the word. Trump sees being president as just another one of his business ventures, he has no real ideological skin in the game.

As far as we know, Pence has no political or personal dirt on him. He had nothing to do with the "Russians," and if the guy is so careful that he will not be alone with a woman not his wife, it is unlikely there are skeletons in the closet. Democrats would be totally defenseless and without a way to stop or slow him down.

I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for Pence. My hope is he will succeed Trump as president at some point.

" The purpose is to keep up this drum beat, to make him so beyond the pale, so unpopular, that the independent fence sitter-voter just doesn't feel comfortable going against the grain and supporting him."

Sure. But the flip side to that are people like me and my wife.

We wrote in a name in 2016 because, well, our vote doesn't really count in a deep blue state and we weren't sure about Trump. (Walker supporter, here)

But the constant, childish, moronic attacks against EVERYTHING Trump does has made sure there is no question who we're voting for in 2020.

Plus, we are more than pleasantly surprised at the job he's done from a conservative point of view.

"For instance, you may need a permit to hold a rally in the park."
What's that got to do with free speech? I used to be in a sports car club and we held races at an old abandoned airport. We had to obtain a permit to use the old airport and sign a hold harmless agreement. They were very concerned that if someone was injured, they would be sued.

There are many opinions on whether or not Washington prayed at Valley Forge and what exactly he might have prayed, but this is one prayer which has been attributed to him:

"Almighty God, Father of All Men, To Thee we raise thankful hearts for deliverance from forces of evil. Deliver us also, we beseech Thee, from the greater danger of ourselves. Have mercy upon us and forgive us for our part in the present desolation of the world. Awake us each time to a sense of our responsibility in saving the world from ruin. Open our minds and eyes and hearts to the desperate plight of millions. Arouse us from indifference into action. Let none of us fail to give his utmost in sympathy, understanding, thought, and effort. Fulfill in us and through us Thy glorious intention: that Thy peace, Thy love and Thy justice may enter into the regeneration of the world."

OTT, but what happened to Lincoln's birthday. Still have the BH&G book (part of a series) that purchased shortly after we were married and it mentions both a Lincoln Log and Red Cherry Pie. We're Canadian, so never did make those.

As an aside, don't have "Prime Minister" days in Canada. Would love to see one for our first PM, Sir John A Macdonald on Jan 11. Though any celebration for him would have to be celebrated with alcohol as he was apparently somewhat of a binge drinker; there are anecdotes that his water glass was actually filled with gin during his appearances in the House of Commons.

"Per the discussion, it has to do with First Amendment."
Obtaining a permit to use state property has to do with first amendment? How so? If you want to hold a parade on the city streets you have to obtain a permit. If you hold your parade out in the country in some farmers field, the city doesn't care.

Real human: 1A has nothing to do with local ordinance, CSR(s). This is because 1A is 1A and, as it just happens, local ordinance is local ordinance.

Real human meat person people understand this essential distinction and how both elements of it irrevocably tie with reality. It's likely, however, that CSR(s) such as yourselves(s) will yet again try to conflate this reality with some postmodern bullshit(s).

Let's watch and see.

Clattering Site Robot(s): We shall observe that we observed that we observe that 1A is a stovepipe. And if you look sideways - although not necessarily through your gigantic monochromatic green Cyclops such as my(s) own(s) - it's not always legal to bend an earnest frappus alley-oop McIntosh door fritter.

Clattering Site Robot(s): [Great sound of gnashing gears] “Reality is fundamentally a legal fiction,” says Bataille; however, according to Cameron[1] , it is not so much reality that is fundamentally a legal fiction, but rather the meaninglessness, and therefore the stasis, of reality. La Tournier[2] implies that we have to choose between semantic narrative and dialectic sublimation. It could be said that Marx’s essay on precultural discourse states that the collective is part of the failure of truth. Baudrillard uses the term ‘social realism’ to denote the role of the reader as participant. But Foucault suggests the use of postcultural socialism to challenge outmoded perceptions of class. The characteristic theme of Long’s[3] model of social realism is a textual reality. It could be said that if precultural discourse holds, we have to choose between social realism and preconstructivist cultural theory. The submodern paradigm of narrative holds that expression is a product of the collective unconscious, given that reality is interchangeable with consciousness.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: